/m/red_sox

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Iglesias, 290 wOBA, .3 WAR (not clear if that's as a 3B or a SS)
Peavy, .8 WAR
Middlebrooks, .304 wOBA, .3 WAR
Workman, .3 WAR (pro-rated to Peavy's projected innings)

OK, that looks fine with the Sox getting a .5 win upgrade for 2013. That hinges on Middlebrooks being as good as Iglesias which I've got doubts about but he's unlikely to be a half-win worse I suppose. His "career" AAA numbers (318 PA) stand at 263/318/488 ... that can't translate well.

Next year (and the next 4-5 years of Iglesias' career) and the money also need to be considered of course but a healthy Peavy will come in handy in 2014.

Normally I wouldn't be too worried about a half-win upgrade but it's one of the ways that the advantage of division champ vs. WC entry changes things. The Sox and Rays may well go down to the wire and both teams need every half-win they can get.

I really don't care enough to bet, but, I could see people not wanting to make a bet that's reliant on SSS defensive stats.

Interestingly enough, I partially retract my #4 for the same reason. FG puts Iglesias' defense at -4, ZiPS (RoS) projects him to just +1 for the RoS. First, if that's anything close to his true talent then the Sox gave up nothing but there does seem widespread agreement he's a defensive whiz.* If he's really a +10-15 SS then that RoS projection goes up by .2 to .3 wins ... trivial of course but then we're talking about a projected gain of just .5 wins to begin with.

* Possibly he's a great SS and a mediocre 3B but that is pretty rare. More likely it's taken him a while to adjust to 3B (i.e. the actual performance-based numbers are correct) but, now that he's had some time, he should be projected to be pretty damn good there.

If Iglesias is a modern Mario Mendoza - see bbref- may there be a redefinition of dwar within the context of the 162 to get to the tournament and the tournament. What is the value of an out machine who is simultaneously winning dancing with the stars and scoring outs....it's a team game...think Belanger and those O's teams...maybe the Tigers have landed a war fit

If Iglesias is a modern Mario Mendoza - see bbref- may there be a redefinition of dwar within the context of the 162 to get to the tournament and the tournament. What is the value of an out machine who is simultaneously winning dancing with the stars and scoring outs....it's a team game...think Belanger and those O's teams...maybe the Tigers have landed a war fit

The thing to remember about Belanger in particular is that Weaver never pretended he could hit. He structured his team to be able to pinch-hit for Belanger at will (and did in high so frequently in high weight situations). Didn't hurt any that Belanger was also a pretty good bunter. Weaver didn't believe in the sac in general, but it's a play that makes a great deal of sense with a fast non-hitter.

But in Belanger's prime Weaver generally ran a 9 man pitching staff. That gave him tactical flexibility that a modern manager could only dream about.

The other thing worth noting is that Weaver cut Belanger's playing time when he wasn't hitting. There's an 85% correlation between his OPS+ and PAs under Weaver. He got 500+ PAs only 7 times and put up an OBP heavy 79 OPS+ in those year. (4 decent years with the bat and 3 "oh well")

In the history of baseball, there's been exactly one team that's regretted trading their slick-fielding shortstop who would be lucky to slug .300. Granted, it was the 1981 San Diego Padres, but still. I like Boston's odds here.

There can't be the same chance of turning into Ozzie Smith or Mark Belanger when Ozzie Smith was so much better than Mark Belanger.

Given what Bud Norris went for, I do at least second-guess the choice of Peavy a bit. They could have shelled out more for a legit ace in Lee, or they could have not given up much and gotten an ok guy in Norris. Giving up a potential starting SS¹ for Peavy is a bit of an unsatisfying middle ground.

Still, it is just a potential starting SS, with a lot of evidence to suggest that he isn't going to cut it. As I said earlier, it very likely feels more satisfying as a fan to have a great-fielding/horrible-hitting SS than one who is below-average at both. But if they both add up to below-average, they represent the same problem.² (Especially since, as #13 mentions, it's more difficult nowadays to use the roster to minimize a player's offensive exposure.)

If Iglesias becomes valuable and Peavy doesn't provide much (or, I suppose, no more than Workman), then this doesn't work out well for the Sox. Certainly very possible, but I think not the most likely scenario.

¹ And I don't think Bogaerts really enters into it, at least when his SS defense is questioned and you have no 3B currently.
² I suppose the situation in which you're not primarily worrying about total value is the one where you're rebuilding, thus don't care about wins this season, and want the great defender to build up your young pitchers' confidence. But that doesn't figure to be the case for the Red Sox.

Iglesias in 1/2 a season has more WAR than Belliard accrued his entire career. He has more than Belliard accrued in any year of his career. In 63 games, Iglesias has more doubles than Belliard had in any season of his career. So please....

And as for regretting trading slick fielding SS's...it's certainly not earth-shattering, but the Cards giving up a cost-controlled Brendan Ryan for practically nothing was a bad decision. He could have been a defensive replacement if anything. Not to mention overall he would have been better than almost all of his subsequent replacements.

Iglesias in 1/2 a season has more WAR than Belliard accrued his entire career. He has more than Belliard accrued in any year of his career. In 63 games, Iglesias has more doubles than Belliard had in any season of his career. So please....

To pile on (and besides noting that Iglesias has already equaled Belliard's career home run total), this is a list of MLB hitters with 2500+ PAs and an OPS+ of 50 or lower, excluding pitchers:

I'd be careful just using WAR in comparing Iglesia v. Peavy w/o factoring opportunity and/or using a Boston specific replacement level. Or, if you prefer, see how they compare with WAA going forward as well.

I have Iglesias as somewhere between Ozzie Smith and Rafael Belliard. E'er the crazy moderate, I know.

Bogaerts should enter into it - I don't see him as a shortstop in the long-term, but his numbers don't suggest that he can't play the position for now. (As he's doing in AAA.)

Glad I picked Iglesias over Hechavarria back when that debate was going on.

As someone who hated this deal at first I've come around on it a bit. There are enough smart people telling me I'm wrong on this that I'm willing to buy it's a good deal though not because of Iglesias. I still think Iglesias is a guy who is going to exceed the statistical forecasts somewhat and be a solid contributor for the next several years. Don't misunderstand, I'm not saying he's going to hit .300 or anything but I think he's going to be a consistent .240-.250 type with Gold Glove caliber defense. His approach at the plate has improved and I think the dire predictions for his bat are going to be wrong.

The bigger thing that has changed for me is the more I look at what Peavy has done over the last couple of years I think he's more of an upgrade than I first appreciated. I think I'm just having Erik Bedard flashbacks. Funnily enough both Bedard and Peavy have the exact same ERA this year.

If Jose Iglesias can have Adam Everett's career, he'd be incredibly fortunate.

That looks reasonable. Looks like Everett has more power...so looking at his stats, and noting Iglesias is starting two years earlier...would I trade Everett for 1 1/3 year of an injury-prone 105 ERA+ (my projection going forward) SP who is being traded for depth and not to keep a 55 ERA+ pitcher out of the rotation? Probably not.

Yes, the Org. is in first place, but it's not like they don't make mistakes, and I think this is one. Especially if they commit 14 mill + to Drew moving forward.*

*No clue what's going on with Bogaerts. If his glove is mediocre as I've heard, why don't they try and convert him to LF or 1B?

And re: the Sox...I'd like to see a study done on how many runs teams score on above avg pitchers vs below avg pitchers. I have a sneaking suspicion that the Sox beat the holy hell out of subpar pitchers more than most teams, but get shutdown more by good pitchers more than most teams.

*No clue what's going on with Bogaerts. If his glove is mediocre as I've heard, why don't they try and convert him to LF or 1B?

From what I've read his glove isn't bad, the concern is that he's a big guy who will grow big enough where he can't handle short anymore. What I have not read anywhere is any kind of "this guy can't play shortstop" type stuff. I think we're looking at average, maybe a little below average defense from Bogaerts and that third base, not LF/1B is his likeliest landing spot.

And re: the Sox...I'd like to see a study done on how many runs teams score on above avg pitchers vs below avg pitchers. I have a sneaking suspicion that the Sox beat the holy hell out of subpar pitchers more than most teams, but get shutdown more by good pitchers more than most teams.

I'm not sure of an easy way to do what you suggest but what I did do was use BBRefPI to compare teams' OPS in wins versus their OPS in losses. The Sox are 2nd in OPS in games they win, they are 17th when they lose.

My first instinct was that this would be consistent. Thinking it through a bit after seeing the data it makes sense that a team with good pitching is going to need to have a low OPS to lose a game since they aren't giving up lots of runs in a game they lose and given that the Sox have had good pitching this year the result is not unusual.

The Braves for example are 4th in wins, 30th in losses, the Nationals go from 12th to 29th, Texas from 5th to 24th. On the other hand teams with weaker pitching are usually able to be a bit better offensively in their losses because they give up more. Baltimore is 13th in wins to 1st in losses, the White Sox from 28th to 8th.

Well, Dan...I'm sure perception has something to do with it....I'm just trying to figure out where the runs are coming from. Sox still might end up with only one 20 HR hitter for the first time in forever. (Naps might pick it up). And no, Hr's aren't everything but in 2007 I KNEW where they were coming from:

Youk
Lowell
Manny
Ortiz
Pedey
Drew was average

I dunno. Either the 2013 Sox are pounding the bloody hell out of the Joe Saunders of the world, or I'm being unduly influenced by high strike-out players like Drew, Napoli, WMB and Salty. 2007 Sox had 0 players avg more than a K a game. 2013 have four. (shrug)

edit: and being influenced by platoons. I cringe when I see Salty or Shane bat right, or Drew face a leftie. This also helps influence just the general feel of 'Those guys...they aren't very good...how are we in first place?*'

*And then you look at the stats and see some 9 guys from 97-120 OPS+ and 1 at 168+

Dead easy to imagine. 3B places a premium on different skills than SS -- reaction time and arm strength are far more important at 3B than SS.

Thing is that a guy with the agility to play SS but a marginal arm for 3B would normally be shifted to 2B.

Reaction time, definitely. Arm strength, I thought it was the opposite, even though that's a bit counterintuitive. However, deep-in-the-hole short is probably about as far from first as is foul-line-behind-3rd, except 1) the shortstop is running full speed and almost directly away from his target, and 2) the ball travels a greater distance in getting to that shortstop, thus he has less time to get the throw to 1B in time.

Sox are second in OBP, third is batting strike-outs (HOU,SEA,BOS,MIN....one of these things is not like the other...) first in batter HBP, first in SB's, first in getting intentional walks...dead last in intentional walks issued.

(1) If Iglesias ever hits as well as Ryan did in 2009 or 2011, I'll . . . well, I'll be ####### surprised.
(2) Oooh, the regret . . . of one decent year and two years of OPS+ well below an acceptable level.

I would imagine that Iglesias is almost certain to end the season with a lower WAR than he has right now.

I dunno. Either the 2013 Sox are pounding the bloody hell out of the Joe Saunders of the world, or I'm being unduly influenced by high strike-out players like Drew, Napoli, WMB and Salty. 2007 Sox had 0 players avg more than a K a game. 2013 have four. (shrug)

edit: and being influenced by platoons. I cringe when I see Salty or Shane bat right, or Drew face a leftie. This also helps influence just the general feel of 'Those guys...they aren't very good...how are we in first place?*'

It might be helpful to watch some other teams' games, or look at their lineups at least. E.G. Salty maybe frustrating to watch hit, but he is giving more production than the catchers for the other 2 division leaders, as well as Tampa and Texas.

In less than 100 PA's. Not saying that Drew is great against lefties, and he's clearly much better against righties. But a ,688 career OPS from a SS is tolerable. Salty does really need to be in a strict platoon role though.

So, against Group 1, the Red Sox score 0.5 fewer runs, strike out 3 more times, and walk 0.5 times more, than other teams do.

Against Group 2, the Red Sox score 0.2 fewer runs, strike out 3 more times, and walk 1.4 times more, than other teams do.

Against Group 3, the Red Sox score 1.4 fewer runs, strike out 4 more times, and walk 0.2 times less, than other teams do.

The Red Sox offense does worse across the board, but they lag the league the most against the worst pitchers, not the best.

I did not expect that.

I'll have to look at the numbers a little more later, because in each group there are 5-10 pitchers who didn't face the Red Sox, and I'm including their numbers in the overall league numbers. Slight apples-to-pears comparison.

This doesn't even make sense. I'm no PI whiz but my sources indicate that precisely "a shitload" of players have recorded at least 317 major league PAs.From the post you quoted:
this is a list of MLB hitters with 2500+ PAs and an OPS+ of 50 or lower, excluding pitchers:

Well, Johnny SLF already pretty much handled this, but yeah, obviously I'm aware of that. So when Iglesias records 2500 PAs and an OPS+ appreciably lower than Belliard's, then we'll be able to definitively say that he was 'arguably the worst hitter (non-Bill Bergen division) in MLB history.' Something tells me that that's not very likely.

VI...I do remember hearing a stat that Boston scored more from the 7th inning on than any other team.

Thanks for all that legwork.

So...I don't think pounding on other people's BP's is a sustainable effort...and between the Sox being 3rd in ERA+, but 11th in WHIP...is it reasonable to posit that the Sox have been lucky? Jus askin people...usual suspects don't have to pile on me.

VI...I do remember hearing a stat that Boston scored more from the 7th inning on than any other team.

Thanks for all that legwork.

So...I don't think pounding on other people's BP's is a sustainable effort...and between the Sox being 3rd in ERA+, but 11th in WHIP...is it reasonable to posit that the Sox have been lucky? Jus askin people...usual suspects don't have to pile on me.

49: I hadn't considered NL pitchers.

Not sure, not trying to impugn VI, but I think there might be something wonky about his numbers. That's only 198 innings, which even even at only 5 IP per start is less than 40 starts (and frankly with those numbers they should be way higher, so probably only about 30). Based on the selection criteria, I'd expect a lot more than that...

While Iglesias has hit almost exactly as well (poorly) in the minors as Belliard did, Iglesias has just had a 40 game stretch, in the majors, where he vastly outhit anything Belliard ever did in any 40 game stretch of his career, so Iglesias is probably a better hitter than Belliard...

Not sure, not trying to impugn VI, but I think there might be something wonky about his numbers.

Yeah, the second-best scoring team in the AL underperforming across the board against what should be a strong subset of pitchers seems peculiar.

I don't think pounding on other people's BP's is a sustainable effort

That's only significant if a) the numbers are accurate, and b) you expect that to be a trait of this team, rather than the random distribution that's taken place over the first half. They've scored the second-most runs in the AL. To me, that's more important than who they were scored against.

Ozzie first recorded a .700 OPS at age 30. Aparicio at 35. Vizquel at 29. Vizquel's minor league OPS was .640. Iglesias = .622. From what I have seen Iglesias is a similar level defender to those above, perhaps most closely resembling Vizquel. I also note he has played almost all of his minor league career at AA and AAA. His numbers would look better if the Sox had started him in A ball, but his glove was so far advanced it didn't make much sense. I don't expect him to mature as a hitter like Ozzie or Omar. But if in the long run he can hit like Aparicio (OPS .653) he will have a very good career, even without the steals. I think he will do it.

From the Tigers perspective I love this trade. Garcia has good upside but is a risk, and the Tigers have several similar players. They have no one like Iglesias. The Chisox shed some $$$ and get some projectable talent. Just what they needed.

As far as the Bosox are concerned it is a defensible "win now" trade. Peavy is good and they "might" ride his arm to another WS. Or not. Doyle Alexander for John Smoltz looked good at the time too. Not that this will turn out that badly.

To say teams did not regret giving up their slick gloved SS is not true. Seattle traded Vizquel for Felix Fermin and Reggie Jefferson. ARod or not, they wanted that one back. The White Sox got a fairly nice haul for Little Louis in 1962 (Pete Ward and Hoyt Wilhelm among others), but arguably their failure to do anything in the mid-60's with those pitching staffs was due not only to lousy offense but also to Ron Hansen playing SS. The Sox traded Don Buford to get Aparicio back in '68; he won 2 more GGs and had his best offensive year there in 1970.

Of course the Padres regretted moving Ozzie. I doubt the Phillies were happy with Bowa for DeJesus, but in all fairness there was that other guy they gave up. And there were a ton of great SS who never got dealt: Ripken, Belanger, Concepcion, Appling, Trammell, Reese. Good shortstops are valuable, probably more valuable than a season and a half of a 30+ starter.

Not sure, not trying to impugn VI, but I think there might be something wonky about his numbers.

I agree. I'll have to check them in the morning to figure out what went wrong. I know the vs. Boston sample has 65 of the 90 pitchers; there's no way 65 pitchers, selected on the basis of being primarily starters, averaged 3 IP per start against Boston.

Sure, if you deracinate their numbers from all context, you can make this argument. The problem, of course, is that in context both men were better hitters than Iglesias, and probably better fielders, too. I am, in fact, having difficulty finding a defensive whiz who saw significant time in the bigs who wasn't a better hitter than Iglesias. That includes Vizquel, who kicked around a lousy M's team for a couple of years before putting up a 95 OPS+ and then had an extremely atypical aging pattern as a hitter.

You can't just compare guys to outliers because it makes you feel good. Most players of Iglesias' caliber never spend much time in the bigs, because their bats are murder.

The problem with assuming that Iglesias is a +10-15 run glove guy is that very few guys are actually able to do that over a large sample size and Iglesias has not had a large sample size. Apparently Simmons, Iglesias, Kozma are all Ozzie Smith level defenders, but I'm guessing most guys like that are not able to maintain their defensive excellence as defense peaks really early.

So, against Group 1, the Red Sox score 0.1 more runs, strike out 0.6 more times, and walk 0.3 times more, than other teams do.

Against Group 2, the Red Sox score 1.6 more runs, strike out 0.1 more times, and walk 0.5 times more, than other teams do.

Against Group 3, the Red Sox score 2.3 more runs, strike out 0.2 fewer times, and walk 1 time more, than other teams do.

The Red Sox offense does better across the board, They clean up against bad pitching much better than the league does against that same sample, but they are not worse against the best.

Again, that's with 90 pitchers in the league sample, even if they haven't faced Boston this year. If I restrict the "vs. teams other than Boston" sample to the 65 who have faced Boston this season, I get:

Anyway... THIS fits in more with what I expect to see, and what I have seen in the past. That is, the best-performing pitchers in the league tend to have less variation in performance against different levels of offense than the best hitters have against the different levels of pitching/defense.